I voted for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act or simply the “crime bill” in 1994, which contained the assault weapons ban as well as other related crime and firearms legislation. It was a sweeping reform bill including increases in police forces and critical funding for a number of important programs to help prevent and solve crime. I would not hesitate to vote for it again. But that vote was one very significant reason that I lost my congressional seat in that year’s election. Now, as the United States once again begins to question its gun regulations in the wake of a horrific tragedy of gun violence, I hope my story may offer instructive lessons on how to approach the issue.

During the months before the 1994 election, I authored and President Bill Clinton signed into law, legislation that provided product liability protection for small-airplane manufacturers. Thousands of my constituents worked in aviation and this legislation, hailed by the aircraft companies (Beech, Cessna, Learjet), saved thousands of jobs in my district and across Kansas. Soon after the law was signed, Cessna reopened its single-engine aircraft assembly line in Kansas. This was one of my biggest achievements as a member of Congress. The media had covered this bill quite a bit, and I felt like I would return to Kansas as a hero of the aviation industry and the working class.

During the campaign, I was out in the district knocking on my constituents’ doors and I stopped by the home of a worker at one of those aircraft plants. He congratulated me on the bill and told me that I saved his job. You can imagine my amazement when the next thing he said to me was that he could not support me in the coming election. Shocked, I asked him why and his answer was simple. “Guns,” he said. He told me that using firearms provided him a cultural identity and a key element of enjoying his life. And when I commented that I wasn’t interested in taking his guns away from him — and only wanted to stop the sale of assault weapons — he firmly told me that it was not my business to tell him what kinds of guns he should be able to purchase and use. Over the next several weeks, that story was replicated many, many times in interactions with my constituents. After the election was over, results showed that I did reasonably well in higher income, more Republican territory but much worse than in previous elections in blue-collar and working-class neighborhoods in Wichita and in many farm and rural areas of my district.

Reading this story, you might get the feeling that it is politically hopeless to get anything done. The truth is that the politics of all this is really tough. Nonetheless, there are some lessons to be learned.

Based on my experience, we need to recognize that large numbers of Americans view gun ownership as almost tantamount to their citizenship, and their views are deeply held and have strong cultural foundations, especially in rural America. Political leaders should not be dissuaded from taking action on this issue, but they must recognize the cultural differences that exist in our diverse nation. We should not demonize the gun owner and recognize that the overwhelming majority are decent, law-abiding people.

Secondly, there must be recognition that this is a complicated problem, and it requires us to address not only certain types of gun manufacturing and ownership but also the mental health oversight and treatment infrastructure in the U.S. as well as the culture of violence that seems to pervade the country. Politicians, the media, law enforcement, military and veteran leaders and the faith-based community need to form a partnership to lay the foundation for why reasonable regulations on weapons are not inconsistent with Second Amendment rights. Public education, particularly by credible authorities on gun issues, must be a key part of this effort.

However, the discussion on guns and violence should not minimize the threat that all Americans — rural and urban — face from the improper and often indiscriminate use of the deadliest of these weapons when in the hands of severely mentally ill individuals. Just because there are many reasons for gun violence, that is no reason for inaction, and weapons themselves are indeed a major part of the problem as well as the solution. We can make common-sense changes to our state and national gun laws while preserving the substance and precedent of the Second Amendment. Most Americans understand there are limits to the kinds of weapons that individuals need to enjoy the recreational use of firearms and to protect themselves. The debate is over where the limits should be drawn.

The biggest lesson I can impart to current legislators is that the complex and multifaceted issues of crime and firearms require us to move forward vigorously but also thoughtfully, with inclusivity and respect for all the stakeholders. I hope that the current desire for action as a result of the tragedy at Sandy Hook does not dissipate with time or as a result of the complexity of the issue.

Dan Glickman served as Agriculture secretary from 1995-2001 and represented the 4th District of Kansas in the House from 1977-1995. He is a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a vice president at the Aspen Institute.